Horizon Last Night
Discussion
global warming and global dimming, we are doomed if this program is reality we may as well kill ourselves now! OK the pills didn't work and the bottle was dry 
So. Global warming, the latest scare story, follows hard on the heels of dire warnings about the next ice age being nigh (as Eric says in the other thread on this) which the same lentilists were shouting about in the 70's.
Unfortunately the planet and its atmosphere doesn't read 'Socialist Worker' as - dammit - the atmosphere isn't heating up as predicted and the surface is only warming in a small part of the northern hemisphere.
Greenies think 'Dammit how do we explain this and keep the scare on' so first they try sulphate and aerosols. Don't ask, but in case you're wondering, global warming models can't cope with atmospheric aerosols so it's bit rich anyway. Realising that aerosols are for @rseholes, the best scientists money can buy move to 'global dimming' through particulates. Less solar energy reaching the earth due to reflection could explain why global warming hasn't happened as predicted. Also it means the pressure is still on as the claimed effect has an industrial / transport claimed cause, and if that problem is solved then global warming can be made even more scary. Result!
It's not the time or place to go into the planet's albedo and reflection versus scattering with particle size, the relative importance of either of these effects compared to cosmic ray fluxes and cloud formation at different altitudes, and the sheer b0ll0x in some of the statements made, but if you're feeling really scientific after reading the NASA thread as well as the two on Horizon, click here. It's probably as far as anyone can go without putting their tenure or grant funding at serious risk.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Friday 14th January 09:57
So. Global warming, the latest scare story, follows hard on the heels of dire warnings about the next ice age being nigh (as Eric says in the other thread on this) which the same lentilists were shouting about in the 70's.
Unfortunately the planet and its atmosphere doesn't read 'Socialist Worker' as - dammit - the atmosphere isn't heating up as predicted and the surface is only warming in a small part of the northern hemisphere.
Greenies think 'Dammit how do we explain this and keep the scare on' so first they try sulphate and aerosols. Don't ask, but in case you're wondering, global warming models can't cope with atmospheric aerosols so it's bit rich anyway. Realising that aerosols are for @rseholes, the best scientists money can buy move to 'global dimming' through particulates. Less solar energy reaching the earth due to reflection could explain why global warming hasn't happened as predicted. Also it means the pressure is still on as the claimed effect has an industrial / transport claimed cause, and if that problem is solved then global warming can be made even more scary. Result!
It's not the time or place to go into the planet's albedo and reflection versus scattering with particle size, the relative importance of either of these effects compared to cosmic ray fluxes and cloud formation at different altitudes, and the sheer b0ll0x in some of the statements made, but if you're feeling really scientific after reading the NASA thread as well as the two on Horizon, click here. It's probably as far as anyone can go without putting their tenure or grant funding at serious risk.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Friday 14th January 09:57
Would that be the same 'Envirotruth' website that's funded by Exxon Mobil, turbobloke? 
www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Envirotruth
www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Envirotruth
mybrainhurts said:
Who are we to believe now?
Certainly not those living off huge research grants.....
Or perhaps with huge proprietary interests with oil companies. By the way, since when were research grants, huge? I have done a lot of research and have had to beg for pennies.
968 said:
Eric Mc said:
Who are we to believe now?
Certainly not those living off huge research grants.....
Or perhaps with huge proprietary interests with oil companies. By the way, since when were research grants, huge? I have done a lot of research and have had to beg for pennies.
Have you ever researched something fashionable, though? Remember the .com boom? Investors were falling over themselves to throw money at anyone with a "business plan". Should've scammed myself some of the damn cash myself....
Don said:
Have you ever researched something fashionable, though? Remember the .com boom? Investors were falling over themselves to throw money at anyone with a "business plan". Should've scammed myself some of the damn cash myself....
Yeah perhaps you are right, but I've never known oil companies to be short of a bob or two, despite the economic circumstances.
968 said:
Eric Mc said:
Who are we to believe now?
Certainly not those living off huge research grants.....
Or perhaps with huge proprietary interests with oil companies. By the way, since when were research grants, huge? I have done a lot of research and have had to beg for pennies.
Maybe it's just within the climate change 'industry' then......and they are huge.
Digging my archives for some figure.....
mybrainhurts said:
So who, exactly, gets all this propoganda cash from the oil companies.......?
www.exxonsecrets.org/
polar_ben said:
So who, exactly, gets all this propoganda cash from the oil companies.......?
www.exxonsecrets.org/
That seems to me like a website that stinks to the ionsphere of lentilism. Attempting to cast scepticsm apon scepticsm. Trying to discredit any research that contradicts their sacred theorem.
I, personally, am a disbeliever in global warming as a result of homosapien endeavour.
There is just too much evidence to suggest that the earth has been warming up and cooling down all by itself for the last eon.
mybrainhurts said:
So who, exactly, gets all this propoganda cash from the oil companies.......?
Umm the oil companies, perhaps? Their HUGE research and development labs and their HUGE PR departments, perhaps, which pays for research to debunk the global warming etc theories. I am not sure about them, however, I think only someone who is totally deluded would deny that the combustion of huge amounts of fossil fuels, producing massive amounts of toxins is not harming the enviromnent.
i was thinking about this yesterday and had this random thought, and no i don't receive funding from te oil industry, although a dicount card would always be appreciated, anyway
given that in effect the entire planet is solar powered, fuel being made by plants using the energy in sun light, and assuming the global dimming is real and effects the amount or energy of the light that hits the ground, what if the rise in CO2 levels was a result of global dimming? surely a reduction in the amount of sunlight, would result in less CO2 consumtion, and with something as huge as the total plant biomass of the planet, this would be capable of making and impact on the planets CO2 levels, especially as they were talking about reductions of between 5 and 20%, less light means less photosynthesis which means not only decreased CO2 uptake by the plants, since plants also have aerobic metabolism and since their energy requiremets won't have changed, they will also be making more CO2 comapred to normal
i don't really know enough about it to be an expert, it's just a thought, i'd be interested in your comments
pk
given that in effect the entire planet is solar powered, fuel being made by plants using the energy in sun light, and assuming the global dimming is real and effects the amount or energy of the light that hits the ground, what if the rise in CO2 levels was a result of global dimming? surely a reduction in the amount of sunlight, would result in less CO2 consumtion, and with something as huge as the total plant biomass of the planet, this would be capable of making and impact on the planets CO2 levels, especially as they were talking about reductions of between 5 and 20%, less light means less photosynthesis which means not only decreased CO2 uptake by the plants, since plants also have aerobic metabolism and since their energy requiremets won't have changed, they will also be making more CO2 comapred to normal
i don't really know enough about it to be an expert, it's just a thought, i'd be interested in your comments
pk
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff